Take a look at QuickWeather if you want a map.

This is definitely the wrong answer for this community, but may be an acceptable answer for this post. I have never used it nor would I ever recommend using it, but the conversations I have had with others who do use it make it seem like the service is far better than any alternative. Given the OP’s requirements and willingness to both pay and sacrifice privacy, it seems like this may be appropriate for OP.

I would still explore other options though. There are several competitors to Life360 and presumably there are some with better privacy policies (even if the service would not typically be recommended on this community). Maybe OP could use a service like https://tosdr.org or https://tldrlegal.com to better evaluate those options that would likely not get much attention on this community.

Depending on the required features, maybe the Live Location Sharing feature of chat apps like Element may be sufficient. It could also help improve the privacy of the users’ by switching to a more private/secure messaging app in the process.

In terms of privacy, you are giving your identity provider insight to each of the third party services that you use. It may seem that there isn’t too much of a difference between using Google’s SSO vs using your Gmail address to register your third party account. However, one big distinction is that Google would be able to see often and when you use each of your third party services.

Also, it may be impossible to restrict the sharing of certain information from your identity provider with the third party service. For example, maybe you don’t want to share a picture of yourself with a service, but that service uses user profile pictures or avatars. That service may ask (and require) that you give it access to your Google account’s profile picture in order to authenticate using Google’s SSO. You may be able to overwrite that picture, but you also may not be able to revoke the service’s ability to retrieve it. If you used a “regular” local account, that Google profile picture would never be shared with the third party service if you did not upload it directly. The same is true for other information like email, first/last/full name, birthday, etc.

There are other security and operational concerns with using SSO options. With the variety of password managers available, introduction of passkeys, and increased adoption of multi-factor authentication, many of the security benefits associated with SSO aren’t as prevalent as they were 10 years ago. The biggest benefit is likely the convenience that SSO still brings compared to other authentication methods.

Ultimately it’s up to you to determine if these concerns are worth the benefits of using SSO (or the third party service provider at all if they require SSO). I have a feeling the common advise will be to avoid SSO unless its an identity provider that you trust (or even better - one that you host yourself) - especially if you’re using unique emails/usernames along with strong and unique passwords with multi-factor authentication and/or passkeys.

There are a few performance issues that you may experience. For example, if you’re into online gaming then your latency will likely increase. Your internet connection bandwidth could also be limited by either Mullvad’s servers, your router, or any of the additional hops necessary due to the VPN. There’s also the situation where you have no internet connection at all due to an issue with the VPN connection.

There are also some user experience issues that users on the network nay experience. For example, any location based services based on IP address will either not work at all or require manual updates by the user. The same is true for other settings like locale, but they are hopefully better handled via browser/system settings. What’s more likely is content restrictions due to geographic IP addresses. Additionally, some accounts/activity could be flagged as suspicious, suspended, or blocked/deleted if you change servers too frequently.

I’m sure you are either aware of or thought through most of that, but you may want to make sure everyone on the network is fine with that too.

In terms of privacy and security, it really comes down to your threat model. For example, if you’re logged into Facebook, Google, etc. 24/7, use Chrome, Windows, etc., and never change the outbound Mullvad server, you’re not doing too much more than removing your ISP’s ability to log your activity (and maybe that’s all you want/need).

Really not sure why you got down voted so hard and it’s a shame your comment was deleted. Your comment was relevant, accurate, and focused on an issue that others aren’t talking about in here (and apparently don’t want to). You were also the only person in this thread who provided any sources.

I’m not sure what argument can be made against what you said. Just because a piece of information “is public” doesn’t mean everyone wants that public information collected and shared with little (if any) control/input by you. If that were the case, doxxing wouldn’t be an issue.

I did not watch the mentioned video so I am not sure if what I am about to mention is discussed there or not. Also, sorry for the really long reply!

I am not aware of any available truly privacy respecting, modern cars. However, assuming theat you obtain one or you can do things like physically disconnect/remove all wireless connectivity from the car to make it as private/secure as possible, there still is little you can do to be truly anonymous.

Your car likely has a VIN and license plate as well as a vehicle registration. Assuming you legally obtained the vehicle and did not take any preventative measures prior to purchasing the car, those pieces of information will be tied back to you and your home address (or at least someone closely connected to you). You would need to initially obtain the vehicle via a compsy/LLC/partnership/etc. as the owner/renter/leasee of the vehicle and an address not associated to you. Additionally, you would need to find some means of avoiding or limiting the additional information connected to you that is likely required to obtain the vehicle like car insurance and your drivers license.

Additionally, any work that certain mechanics perform may be shared (either directly or indirectly) with data brokers - even just routine maintenance like an oil change or alignment. Hopefully you didn’t use your credit card, loyalty rewards program, etc. when you had any work done!

There is also CCTV, security cameras, and other video recorders that are nearly impossible to avoid. Given enough time/resources and maybe a little bit of information, your car could be tracked from its origin to destination locations. This location history can be used to identify you as the owner (or at least driver/passenger) of the car. Unless your car never leaves your garage, you can almost guarantee that your car is on some Ring camera, street camera, etc.

Furthermore, anything special or different about your car (custom decal, unusual window tinting, funny bumper sticker, uncommon color for the car, uncommon trim/package for the car, dented bumper, fancy rims, replaced tires, specific location of toll reader placement on the windshield, something hanging from your rear mirror, etc.) all help identify your car. The make/model and year of your car can also be used to identify your car if its not a common car in the area. These identifiers can be used to help track your car via the video feeds mentioned above.

Then there are license plate readers which are only slightly easier to avoid than the video recordings. Permanent, stationary license plate readers can be found on various public roads and parking lots. There are also people who drive around with license plate readers as part of their job for insurance/repossession purposes. You may be able to use some sort of cover over your license plate(s) to hinder the ability of license plate readers to capture your plate number, but that could be used to help identify your car in video feeds/recordings.

Its really hard to tell from a technical perspective, especially without having closely monitored all of your digital activity (and those that you have been in close contact with) in the days/weeks leading up receiving the ads. Some things that Meta could have done (in varying degrees of realism) include:

• read anything you downloaded from your Matrix client, like file attachments
• read your notifications if they contain any contents of the conversation
• read your clipboard if you copy/pasted anything into/out of a Matrix client
• actively participating in the room and associated your Matrix ID to your Meta account(s)
• scraped the contents of the room if it is public and unencrypted
• others in the Matrix room saved your Matrix ID in your contact information within their contacts
• Meta is recording your screen outside of Meta’s apps
• a Meta library is used in another app/service on your device that is sharing information back to Meta
• read an attachment that you downloaded elsewhere then shared on Matrix
• Meta read screenshots you or others took of the conversation
• Meta has a back door in the Matrix server or client software used
• the administrators of your Matrix home server (or the administrors of any other home server in the room) are sharing non-encrypted information to Meta to offset hosting costs
• Meta is running a home server of a user in the room
• you or someone you are associated with clicked on a link shared in the Matrix room that contained a tracker or led to a site that contained a tracker

Its really hard to comprehensively and conclusively avoid all “spying” that Meta/Instagram could do to you. The best thing that you could do is something that many people aren’t capable or willing to do - not install any Meta software, don’t use any Meta services, block any Meta IP addresses and/or domain names, and advocate that those around you do the same.

Realistically, the best advice that youre going to get has already been said. Use the web browser instead of the app as much as possible, ideally in a different browser and/or user profile. If you must have the app installed, keep it in a separate profile and kill the app and/or profile whenever it is not in use. Review all of your security and privacy settings in all Meta apps. Review any apps/services you allowed Meta to connect to/from (and the security/privacy settings of those apps). Reduce the amount of information that you enter/share on Meta platforms. Review the other users that you are connected with on Meta’s platforms.

Congrats on getting everything working - it looks great!

One piece of (unprovoked, potentially unwanted) advice is to setup SSL. I know you’re running your services behind Wireguard so there isn’t too much of a security concern running your services on HTTP. However, as the number of your services or users (family, friends, etc.) increases, you’re more likely to run into issues with services not running on HTTPS.

The creation and renewal of SSL certificates can be done for free (assuming you have a domain name already) and automatically with certain reverse proxy services like NGINXProxyManager or Traefik, which can both be run in Docker. If you set everything up with a wildcard certificate via DNS challenge, you can still keep the services you run hidden from people scanning DNS records on your domain (ie people won’t know that an SSL certificate was issued for immich.your.domain). How you set up the DNS challenge will vary by the DNS provider and reverse proxy service, but the only additional thing that you will likely need to set up a wildcard challenge, regardless of which services you use, is an email address (again, assuming you have a domain name).

I was looking for a free opensource sharing plateform first

What type of sharing platform are you looking for? A git repo? A single file sharing service? A code/text snippet sharing service? Something else?

There are many options available. Some have free, public instances available for use. Others require you to self host the service. Regardless, you’re not stuck using Github just to share your user.js file.

the only sites I give permenant cookie exception are my selfhosted services

This is what I was referring to. How are you accomplishing this?

I’m still looking for the switches to block all new requests asking to access microphone, location, notification

I can’t help with this at the moment, but if you’re still struggling with this I can provide the lines required to disable these items. However, I don’t know how to do this with exceptions (ie allowing your self hosted sites to use that functionality, but block all other sites). At minimum though you could require Firefox to ask you every time a site wants to use something. This may get repetitive for things like your self hosted sites if you have everything clearing when you exit Firefox.

Didn’t look at the repo thoroughly, but I can appreciate the work that went into this.

• Is there any reason you went this route instead of just using an user-overrides.js file for the standard arkenfox user.js file?
• Does the automatic dark theme require enabling any fingerprintable settings (beyond just possobly determining the theme of the OS/browser)?
• How are you handling exceptions for sites? I assumed it would be in the user.js file, but didn’t notice anything in particular handling specific URLs differently.

https://github.com/owntracks/android

The F-Droid version (which is available on IzzyOnDroid’s repo) utilizes OSM. You’ll need a server to sync the data to though and it likely does not have all of the features that Life360 has.

How do you use your Beelink? More specifically what OS (and maybe core/most used apps) do you have installed? How do you interact with it (eg - wireless keyboard/mouse, USB IR receiver, etc.)?

Any downside to this approach compared to using the Smart TV/Android TV/Apple TV features?

Calls made from speakers and Smart Displays will not show up with a caller ID unless you’re using Duo.

Is it possible to use Duo still? Google knows it discontinued/merged Duo with Google Meet nearly 18 months ago, right?

I’m still not sure what point you are trying to make. Your initial claim was:

Although Mozilla encrypts the synced data, the necessary account data is shared and used by Google to track those.

@[email protected] asked:

Are you saying Firefox shares data to Alphabet beyond Google as the default search engine? If so and if it applies to Sync (as if the question from OP here) can you please share sources for that?

You stated:

Mozilla does, sharing your account data

You also provided evidence that Mozilla uses Google Analytics trackers on the Firefox’s product information website. I mentioned that it’s not sufficient evidence of your claim as the trackers are independent of Firefox the browser and Sync. Additionally, the use of trackers for websites is clearly identified on Mozilla’s Privacy Policies and there is not much else mentioned on the Privacy Policies outside of those trackers and Google’s geolocation services in Firefox.

You’ve also mentioned Google’s contract with Mozilla, which is controversial for many people, but isn’t evidence of Mozilla providing user data to Google even in conjunction with the previously mentioned trackers. You then discussed various other browsers, but I’m not sure how that is relevant to your initial claim.

While it seems we can both agree that Mozilla and it’s products are far from perfect, it is looking like your initial claim was baseless as you have yet to provide any evidence of your initial claim. Do you have any evidence through things like code reviews or packet inspections of Firefox or Sync that hints Mozilla is sharing additional information to Google? At this point, I would even accept a user(s) providing evidence of some weird behavior like the recent issue where google.com wouldn’t load in Firefox on Android if someone could find a way to connect the weird behavior to Mozilla sharing data with Google.

I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Mozilla has several privacy policies that cover its various products and services which all seem to follow Mozilla’s Privacy Principles and Mozilla’s overarching Privacy Policy. Mozilla also has documentation regarding data collection.

The analytics trackers that you mentioned would fall under Mozilla’s Websites Privacy Policy, which does state that it uses Google Analytics and can be easily verified a number of ways such as the services you previously listed.

However, Firefox sync uses https://accounts.firefox.com/ which has its own Privacy Policy. There is some confusion around “Firefox Accounts” as it was rebranded to “Mozilla Accounts”, which again has its own Privacy Policy. There is no indication that data covered by those policies are shared with Google. If Google Analytics trackers on Mozilla’s website are still a concern for these services, you can verify that the Firefox Accounts and Mozilla Accounts URLs do not contain any Google Analytics trackers.

Firefox has a Privacy Policy as well. Firefox’s Privacy Policy has sections for both Mozilla Accounts and Sync. Neither of which indicate that data is shared with Google. Additionally, the data stored via the Sync service is encrypted. However, there is some telemetry data that Mozilla collects regarding Sync and more information about it can be found on Mozilla’s documentation about telemetry for Sync.

The only thing that I could find about Firefox, Sync, or Firefox Accounts/Mozilla Accounts sharing data with Google was for location services within Firefox. While it would be nice for Firefox not to use Google’s geolocation services, it is a reasonable concession and can be disabled.

Mozilla is most definitely not a perfect company, even when it comes to privacy. Even Firefox has been caught with some privacy issues relatively recently with the unique installation ID.

Again, I’m not saying that Mozilla is doing nothing wrong. I am saying that your “evidence” that Mozilla is sharing Firefox, Sync, or Firefox Accounts/Mozilla Accounts data with Google because of Google Analytics trackers on some of Mozilla’s websites is coincidental at best. Without additional evidence, it is misleading or flat out wrong.

I’m not disputing the results, but this appears to be checking calls made by Firefox’s website (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/) and not Firefox, the web browser application. Just because an application’s website uses Google Analytics does not mean that the application shares user data with Google.

tl;dr: A notable marketshare of multiple browser components and browsers must exist in order to properly ensure/maintain truly open web standards.

It is important that Firefox and its components like Gecko and Spidermonkey to exist as well as maintain a notable marketshare. Likewise, it is important for WebKit and its components to exist and maintain a notable marketshare. The same is true for any other browser/rendering/JavaScript engines.

While it is great that we have so many non-Google Chrome alternatives like Chromium, Edge, Vivaldi, etc., they all use the same or very similar engines. This means that they all display and interact with websites nearly identically.

When Google decides certain implementation/interpretation of web standards, formats, behavior, etc. should be included in Google Chrome (and consequently all Chromium based browsers), then the majority marketshare of web browsers will behave that way. If the Chrome/Chromium based browsers reaches a nearly unanimous browser marketshare, then Google can either ignore any/all open web standards, force their will in deciding/implementing new open web standards, or even become the defacto open web standard.

When any one entity has that much control over the open web standards, then the web standards are no longer truly “open” and in this case becomes “Google’s web standards”. In some (or maybe even many) cases, this may be fine. However, we saw with Internet Explorer in the past this is not something that the market should allow. We are seeing evidence that we shouldn’t allow Google to have this much influence with things like the adoption of JPEG XL or implementation of FLoC.

With three or more browser engines, rendering engines, and browsers with notable marketshares, web developers are forced to develop in adherence to the accepted open web standards. With enough marketshare spread across those engines/browsers, the various engines/browsers are incentivized to maintain compatibility with open web standards. As long as the open web standards are designed and maintained without overt influence by a single or few entities and the open standards are actively used, then the best interest of the collective of all internet users is best served.

Otherwise, the best interest of a few entities (in this case Google) is best served.

Alerts, notifications, person recognition, object recognition, motion detection, two way audio, automated lights, event based video storage, 24/7 video storage, automated deletion of stale recorded video, and more can all be accomplished 100% locally.

Granted, much of this functionality is not easily accomplished without some technical knowledge and additional hardware. However, these posts typically are made by people who state to at least have an interest in making that a reality (as this one does).

What security benefits does a cloud service provide?

Your options will depend on how much effort you are willing to put in and what other services you have access to (or are willing to run).

For example, do you have a Network Video Recorder (NVR) or something like Home Assistant that can consume a Real-Time Messaging Protocol (RTMP) or Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) video feed? Can you modify your network to block all internet traffic to/from the doorbell? Are you comfortable using a closed source, proprietary app to setup the doorbell? Is creating your own doorbell feasible?

I’m not aware of a doorbell that you can buy which meets all of your requirements without at least one of the items I mentioned above. Additionally, I believe the only doorbell that meets all your requirements is building your own doorbell. However, some other brands that will get close to meeting your requirements are Reolink and Amcrest.